Comments

The primaries and the candidates and the general: let’s get practical — 68 Comments

1. U R 1000% CORRECT.

2. Far right and Ron Paul voters are no more realistic than the lefties and hopium voters. It’s all about feelings.

3. We are political junkies; most voters are not.

   At the present moment, undecided voters know a media cartoon caricature of Gingrich; do not truly know Gingrich. If Gingrich becomes the nominee, and as undecided voters have opportunity to listen to their friends describe his strengths, and as undecided voters – probably for the first time in their lives – truly zero in and listen to a few minutes of Newt Gingrich speaking: then opinions will shift. The cartoon characterization will give way to the reality of an intelligent, capable person who has been there before, and who knows how to get us out of our current dilemmas – who knows, for instance, the legislative ins and outs of how to go about repealing the provisions of Obamacare.

   I have previously argued the same dynamic re Sarah Palin: undecided (i.e. uninformed) voters only know a cartoon caricature of her. If they had an opportunity to know her as a candidate, and to truly listen to her speak, and to closely look into her face: the media created cartoon caricature would fade away, and the reality of Palin would emerge.

   IMO, among 2012 voters: Newt is even less known than Palin. Undecided voters are not political junkies who remember 1994; undecided voters do not watch the cable political TV shows on which Gingrich – over the last decade – has appeared and has spoken. If undecided voters watched political cable TV shows: they would not be undecided voters. Rather, they would have opinions and would be partisans … either for bigger government or for smaller government.

4. gcotharn: for your theory to be correct, it would have to be undecided voters who are largely unfamiliar with Gingrich who have a poor opinion of him whereas those who are familiar with him have a higher opinion. I don’t think that’s ever been measured. It would be interesting to poll people on how familiar they are with Gingrich and then ask if they approve and disapprove.

   I would guess differently than you. I think it’s the non-conservative voters in the middle (i.e. undecided or moderate Republican or moderate Democrat) who are are most familiar with Gingrich who disapprove most.

   But neither you nor I have any way of checking out our theories so far. I’ve never seen a poll like that.

   Because I think that a lot of voting decisions are made on those intangible personal gut reactions I’ve discussed previously in the thread on “likability” and others, I think Gingrich will wear very poorly with people as they get to know him better. But of course that is just my guess.

5. Those polls are too far out from the general election to really provide valuable insight.

   I am with Glenn Reynolds and I think that his “Syphilitic Camel” rule is probably going to be the governing rule this election.

   President Obama is worse than Carter and when the “question” (Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?) is asked of him later this year it isn’t going to matter who the questioner is.

6. Note re Palin: even though she was on a national ticket in 2008, I argue that she was constrained, by the McCain Campaign, from making the ideological arguments which she thrives upon, and from using her instinctive political genius about the American electorate. Also, since Palin had never been vetted by American voters: the wild allegations, from the left/media/Obama Campaign, had a greater effect on American voters (created an unusually large amount of skepticism).

   If Palin ever runs again: she has now been FULLY vetted (re any wild allegations about a strange Christian fundamentalist hypocrite from a strange state); she will be able to make the ideological arguments which she thrives upon; she will be freely able to act upon her instinctive political genius. IMO, in the minds of undecided voters, much of the cartoon characterization of Palin would fade away.

7. instugator: I think that “syphilitic camel” argument ignores the reality of Obama’s continuing relative popularity. It’s a trap into which I’m surprised that so many Republicans fall: cockiness. But I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.

   And I already explained why I think the polls provide at least some insight despite how far out in time they are. None of the subjects are unknowns; they are all pretty well-known at this point, and the polls haven’t really changed since last summer. They seem surprisingly stable so far, despite all the things that have happened.

8. Instugator, the real best question of the 2012 campaign is something which Repubs ought steal from Rick Perry:

   Are you better off now than you were 4 Trillion dollars ago?

   THAT is a winning campaign question. THAT ought be our trumpet call.

9. We’ve all said this will be a dirty election, but I don’t think we’ve even begun to fathom just how dirty Obama’s side will fight. A former Obama staffer was just arrested in Iowa for trying to steal the identity of the Secretary of State there, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. This will just keep happening, in large part (I think) because Obama supporters somehow think the old rules just don’t apply to them any longer.

   Will American voters react negatively to Obama’s tactics or will he get another pass? Does it matter that Obama is worse than Carter if the vote is widely fraudulent?

   And then there’s the question of how any Republican candidate will stack up against Obama. Newt’s suggestion for a Lincoln-Douglas style debate won’t happen. Obama will blow him off and the press will make it sound like Newt’s the strange one for asking, not Obama for turning down the debate.

   I have seen some real worrisome signs on Mitt’s side recently. He’s picked up a stammer, his eye contact is strange, he doesn’t seem to focus on the issue that voters want to hear about, and he just doesn’t seem at the top of his game. Newt is the better debater and that will possibly carry the nomination, but Newt doesn’t seem stable to me. Hot, yes. Stable — I don’t think so.

   So just where does this all lead? I’m thinking Newt will implode in another month or so and Mitt will waltz to the nomination but without inspiring any enthusiasm on the part of large parts of the Republican base. Then he will come face-to-face with the reality of an Obama campaign that is above the fray, dishonest and amoral. Mitt won’t want to go for the jugular because he’ll think that will turn voters off, and we’ll end up with 4 more years of Obama. That’s how I see it at this point in time.

10. Hoping in Newt is like hoping the shark takes the guy next to you.

    Hoping in Romney is like hoping a tuna becomes a shark.

11. I saw Romney on a talk show a couple of years ago and I liked him. He came across to me as a decent and honorable guy. But the phrase “noblesse oblige” also came to mind. He seemed very much like a rich guy who was calm and genial precisely because he never had to go through the struggles that most of us do to get through life.

    So I think that gives rise to two fears about Romney as a candidate regardless of any polls. First, that he will be exceptionally vulnerable to class warfare campaigning by the Dems. And second, that he will not be harsh enough on Obama. If Republican voters were confident enough he would win he would have the nomination sewed up already. But if he’s *not* going to win they’d rather go down swinging with Newt. I’m not saying that that is a good reason for supporting Newt but I think that is what is going on now because it is now basically a two-man race. Paul will not be nominated and Santorum despite his surprise in Iowa is just not getting enough traction.

12. “So, how would it work? How would Gingrich beat Obama given all these facts?”

    Simple! The Elephants would swamp the voting booth with dead people!!

13. A peculiar observation:

    One inhibiting factor of being a certain minority, such as a Jew or a Morman (but definitely not black) is the protection afforded by political correctness. Napolean is a good example here, especially for the Jews who were willing to trade their orthodoxy for protection.

    Bush and McCain, as privliged rich white guys refused to take on PC. And lost. Romney has the same problem and shows the same losing strategy.

    Newt don’t.

14. I want to make clear that PC does not provide protection to Jews and Mormans or white people in general. It does apply to all those who want reparations from “Western Civilization.”

    Since there is plenty in WC in practice that shows man’s nature, there is plenty to show that WC is evil. Thus the nature of PC’s instructions from the dragon who, even in the midst of Paradise, found reason to disparage.

15. As I’ve remarked here in the past, there are way too many of us practicing amateur political ‘science’ here. Polls, polls and more polls all equate to a big ‘So What.’ We cite the numbers almost unthinkingly, without knowledge of the fine points of polling, detection of poll bias, the effects of big money campaigns on polls, etc. How many of the vaunted polls showed Santorum would take a First in Iowa? A pox on the polls, say I.

    (BTW, that is exactly why the big campaigns do their own, so-called internal, polling. They don’t trust the public pollling process and numbers either)

    Way too many of us are acting like racetrack gamblers, buying the tout sheets, wagering emotion and thought instead of money on projected winners. The November finish line is a long way off, the horses are just reaching the first turn, and some of us are cheering and others already tearing up our betting slips in disgust and disappointment.

16. To get a better grip on the state of the USA, I recommend Charles Murray in today’s WSJ:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577170733817181646.html?KEYWORDS=charles+murray

17. I completely agree with this analysis. Gingrich would be the biggest disaster in a general election since George McGovern. The hard right says Romney will lose. Maybe that’s true. But maybe it’s not. And if he does lose, I’m fairly confident that it will be a closer election than in 2008. Gingrich would get absolutely wiped out. It might be WORSE than 2008, even though the environment is much more negative for Democrats than it was then. And there are consequences that go beyond just losing the presidency. A Gingrich wipeout would probably lead to losing the House and eliminate the chance of taking back the Senate. That was one of the major consequences of the Barry Goldwater disaster. Not only did LBJ win in a blowout, but he got huge majorities in both houses of Congress, which enabled him to enact much of his domestic policy agenda.

18. As of this moment, I support Romney, with caution. But Gingrich could win.

    His negatives are an historical artifact of liberal journalistic standard issue defamation of character. They slander him for the same reason they slander anyone – they fear him.

    We should think that the people most hated are some of the best or at least have some outstanding qualities. Go down the list in y mind of who liberals hate and have brainwash others to hate. They are all either go,I’d people or effective people.

    The general will be fought in 13 States. Newt has the name recognition. State by State he can convince people a) why his ideas are fab and b) more importantly why Obama is the most dangerous person ever. A little turning of the tables

    People will not vote for Newt, or Romney. They will vote against Obama – as every decent American should.

    To me it will all come down to election day and tens of millions of Americans alone in the booth asking themselves, ‘Do I really want to go through THAT again?’

    I think they say No Way.

19. The notion of electability is emotion-driven. The facts entered into evidence are “approval/disapproval” ratings. We’re not arguing about any policy ideas, the process of implementing them, or their predicted outcomes. We’re not even arguing about the hierarchy of challenges the country or the FedGov is facing.

    This is all the softest of social sciences. I say that if we’re arguing feelings–which we are–whatever we conclude today is subject to dramatic and abrupt change. A significant part of the business of advertising is creating and changing opinion (feelings). Whichever person has the best ad team wins.

    There is no “practical” element to Gingrich or Romney or Paul or Santorum. Whoever wins the nomination will have all the practical material stuff on their side. They will be on the ballot in all the States. They will have hundreds of millions of dollars to hire ad people and get messages out.

    People seem to write in certainties. The only thing certain is the past. Which righty has a better chance of beating Obama? can also be phrased Who is Obama more likely to lose to? It may be hard to see Newt beating Barry, but it is entirely believable to see Barry losing to Newt. Or Mitt. Or Ron or Rick. Each scenario has different paths, some worn and some yet to be blazed.

    The entire conversation is ahead of the issues. The practical problems to solve now are establishing the hierarchy of issues (it ain’t any one thing, stupid). And evaluating policy ideas. Can Newt’s immigration boards be implemented? How would Paul’s relocating most of the military to the homeland affect the budget and the economy? What, exactly, would Mitt ask for as a substitute for Obamacare?

    Those are the questions to ask and decide. Once we hire the right ad team, we can create the feelings we need to votes.

20. If you want a practicalish question, can Mitt or Newt win without the Paulbots’ votes? Many would be wise to heed Palin’s advice and not dismiss Paul’s ideas out of hand.

    Anyone who thinks defeating Obama is the single overarching goal should learn how to engage RP and the Constitutionalists.

21. Don Carlos: candidates do their own polling because they want a more precise and accurate measure than the regular polls can give them. And of course we’re pretty much all in agreement that polls can be slanted and inaccurate in any number of ways, and often are.

    But—and it’s a large but—that’s a completely different thing from saying polls don’t matter and can safely be ignored. For one thing, they are the best indication we have; we don’t have the ability to do our own more accurate private polling. For another, I have linked to a compendium of many many polls, and results over time as well. And they show some very clear trends, both across the polls and over time.

    I’m used to debunking and criticizing polls; I do it myself a lot in many ways. But I never ignore them or say they don’t matter at all or don’t indicate anything at all. Upsets are relatively rare these days, although they occur. As much as I criticize this poll or that poll for this thing or that thing that I see wrong with it (such as, for example, biased sampling, or leading questions), I have been very impressed over time by how relatively often they get it pretty right.

    And that’s true whether I’m pleased with what they’re saying or not.

22. F,

    WHat you outline is exactly what I fear which is why at this point I support Newt. Make no mistake, though, If Romney is the nominee I will gladly (not reluctantly) vote for him.

    I also think that as Gingrich is an intelligent man, he has the ability to pivot. In prior posts, Wolla Dalbo, with some apparent first hand knowledge, has written that Newt was known in DC as a speaker who could, indeed, work with others. I’ve used the George Patton analogy before, and like Patton, it seems that people either love or hate Newt–there seems to be little middle ground. He engineered a Repub takeover of the House, I do believe that he can engineer a successful national campaign. Say what one will, he’s not so stupid as to let his ego impede the major goal of his career.

    Now the polls show generic Republican at least even with and in some cases ahead of Obama. Why should Newt not be that generic Republican?

    I have played with the electoral map (270towin.com). Starting with the 2008 distribution and based on current circumstances I give any Republican NH, NC, PA, OH, IN and NM. I’m confident that the Repub will take FL (contrary to Dem belief, many Hispanics especially of Cuban descent are traditional. There’s also the Rubio effect and Jeb Bush) and I think that a good part (not all) of the Jewish vote will swing Repub after Obama’s treatment of Netanyahu and Israel. I think VA goes Repub, too; Repub gov, Repub Legislature, I think too much Repub influence to be outweighed by the DC suburbs; besides, Newt’s a Southern boy. Obama gets the entire West coast and New England (except NH), and WI, MI, CO and NV are tossups for now. (Mitt gets MI if he is the nominee, WI goes Repub if Walker survives the recall, both Dem if not). WIth this distribution, I get 301 Repub electoral votes to 197 Dem. I don’t think this changes whether Newt or Mitt (other than MI) is the nominee. Again anything could happen–Newt implodes it’s back to the drawing board.

    Finally, I’ve read and heard too much anecdotal information to disregard an unreported and increasing national anger with the leftist Dem machine. When Obama claims a laser-like focus on jobs and retards Gulf drilling permits, nixes the Keystone pipeline, tells Boeing it can’t build in SC, announces that he plans on sharing tech secrets with Russia and bows to potentates the left’s duplicity and holier-than-thou facade has been severely breached. Climategate and Gore were also inestimable in making this happen. The shrinking circulation of the NY Times and Newsweek, the shrinking viewership fo CBS, ABC and NBC, the failure of AirAmerica the putrid ratings of leftist cable Networks like MSNBC have all convinced me that there are many, many people out there for whom “pissed” is an understatement.

    Remember 47% of 2008 voters rejected Obama without a track record–they haven’t changed their mind. I’m convinced that the the Repubs will pick up the remaining necessary 4%+ from the independents who feel scammed and violated by this administration.

23. Foxmarks,

    “It may be hard to see Newt beating Barry, but it is entirely believable to see Barry losing to Newt. Or Mitt. Or Ron or Rick.”

    What a superb observation. After all it IS all about percveption, isn’t it?

24. A link to the SC primary exit polling.

    http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/south-carolina/exit-polls

25. @ T,

    I sure hope you are on target.

    I have aslso been thinking for months that each of our candidates has certain things I really like. I’ve wished we could mold them all together into one. Palin was the one I thought had the most qualities I want in a President. I still think that. But it was her decision and she may have missed her moment, although I must say she looks better and better as the months go on and not worse. She, btw, gave Newt a real boost in SC.

    But we’ll get who we get. They are all pretty good, and relative to Obama they’d be excellent; and for beating Obama they deserve parades and statues for that alone. Obama is a menace to America. He is worse than any foreign enemy we ever had. He and the entire Dem Party today, without exception, are the very thing the Founders wrote about when they wrote about enemies foreign and domestic. As domestic enemies, they are the by far greater danger.

    Newt can beat him. Whoever wins, we cannot go into this thing without the willingness to fight to the very end. It is all on the line here.

26. Mike Mc,

    I hope so too, for the sake of our country.

    I live in Western PA so I have direct experience w/ the rust belt. James Carville was actually correct years ago when he described PA as Phildelphia on one end Pittsburgh on the other and Alabama in between (although unlike him, I don’t mean to be condescending when I say it). The state has a large but spread out Repub contingent in the interior but the Dem union left reigns supreme in Phila and Pgh. Obama has not been well received in western PA. In fact the last time he showed up in Pgh, he spoke in one of the smaller rooms of the convention center and even that was less than half full. If greater Pgh does not go Dem it allies itself w/ the Repub element of the state and the state goes Repub. We had a sweep in our 2010 elections took over the second congressional house and replaced Dem Ed Rendell with a Repub gov. I also think that Chris Christie’s success in NJ will have some effect on the greater Phila area nudging it to the right.

    I think Ohio goes red too. Kasich as gov, and even though he lost the union fight in the recent election, I fully expect the rust belt to be solid red this year (lack of jobs from that laser-like focus, don’t you know). At this point, I just don’t see any swing states swinging left in November. I even wonder if Connecticut will remain blue if Mitt is the Repub nominee, but I just don’t have the courage to make that call.

27. I think that “syphilitic camel” argument ignores the reality of Obama’s continuing relative popularity.

    I always thought it was ‘I’d vote for a syphilitic camel before I’d vote for B.O.’ I.e., it’s an ‘anybody-but-Obama’ sentiment, not a ‘anyone can beat Obama’ sentiment. That’s how Insty seems to use it.

    But maybe I’m wrong.

28. But now I want to ask a question: why is it that you think “he” has a good chance of getting elected? Because I don’t see it.

    Notice what I did with the quotes there?

    Now. Substitute a candidate name for “he”. Any candidate.

    I don’t believe, and haven’t for almost 2 years (since a bit before the 2010 elections, after it became obvious that the Tea Party was going to be significant in the results), that Obama has a chance in hell of winning.

    Obama loses.

    Period.

    I don’t give a damn what the polls say. I haven’t trusted them for awhile, I don’t trust them now. I will not trust them for some indeterminant time to come.

    (I have all kinds of reasons for that deep and still abiding mistrust, but the main one is that I think the vast majority are not meant to poll, but to influence. YMMV …and I understand you might disagree …but I think it’s foolish to put much faith in them, as it seems obvious they’ve been politicized. I wonder if they’re even all that useful.)

    Now as for why O’ loses: it’s the economy.

    No one is better off. MOST people are worse off. And not merely worse off: they are frightened.

    And they may not know crap about politics, but they are not blind.

    O’ loses because barring a vast and unexpected miracle, the fact is that the economy will not improve prior to the coming election.

    And all the money in the O’ campaign coffers is not going to matter one tiny bit when it comes to countering that.

    So. Obama loses.

    I don’t think it’s even close.

    Newt can win …because anyone other than Obama will win.

    …and I’m as “for Newt” as I am for any one currently running, because I simply think he’d be the better leader than Romney (I have an abiding distrust of technocrats, based upon 40 years of watching that type create bad policy from the local level through the federal level).

    ——
    I think that Sarah Palin would have been a better choice yet; she has the potential to be a simply superb leader …not only the first woman elected POTUS, but the possibility (only the possibility, granted: I’m going by gut instinct, but I know enough about her to trust my gut on this one) of being numbered amongst the truly great presidents of the US.

    And she would have won, too, and for exactly the same reason.

    Obama …loses.

29. “Many would be wise to heed Palin’s advice and not dismiss Paul’s ideas out of hand”

    Depends which ideas you’re talking about. His economic ideas of course resonate strongly not only with the Tea Party but with many commenters here. His foreign policy is something else again – truly toxic to many people. It is one thing to say we need to be more cautious in deploying our military strength overseas. It is quite another to blame the US for 9/11, especially insofar as the implication is to blame US support for Israel. Palin is undoubtedly talking about the economic ideas, not the foreign policy.

30. davisbr, that makes two of us who believe Obama is going down. Newt beats him. Santorum beats him. Romney beats him. Obama has only the slimmest possibility of victory. 2012 will be, by many orders of magnitude, the nastiest election which any of us have ever seen. Obama has no accomplishments upon which to run, therefore his only hope is to demonize the Repub candidate … as we have never seen anyone be demonized. The nastiness will be MASSIVE. We ain’t seen nuthin yet. Obama will play the racism card for all he is worth: it is, pretty much, all he’s got. We will watch, and will shake our heads in disbelief. Lawsuits will be filed hither and tither – intended to intimidate and to stifle and to steal. The entirety of the nasty immorality will be amazing to behold. And it will not be enough. Obama is going down. Hard. Welcome to my club of those who see this.

31. davisbr and gcotharn,

    “The entirety of the nasty immorality will be amazing to behold,” and I think that this is exactly one of the reasons that Obama will lose. His campaign will present itself as extremely UNpresidential (as his bowing and apologizing has already set the stage). As I noted above, the mask hasn’t just slipped, it has completely fallen away and many of the American people are seeing the reality of the left for the first time.

32. 1980. Polls and conventional wisdom and MSM anally abused.

    This election is setting up just like 1932, 1952 and 1980 – times of great unrest with very unpopular incumbents. It’s ABO time.

33. gcotharn Says:
    January 21st, 2012 at 9:58 pm

    Obama is going down. Hard. Welcome to my club of those who see this.

    gcotharn, I agree with every word of your comment, except the conclusion. I think this is Obama’s election to lose. I have a hard time imagining Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum beating him.

    Obama still has the MSM, vote fraud, and white guilt on his side, as well as a population that has been trained to regard capitalism as evil. I have a bad feeling about this.

34. The question is…Who would you pick for republican if you knew Obama couldn’t win? Because he simply can’t.

    There’s no way the 47% that voted against him in 08 hasn’t grown to 60%+. It just ain’t gonna happen for Obama or democrats in 2012. And they know it and are trying every psyops ploy with polls they can imagine to make it not so. Stress over it at your own peril.

35. (I left a version of this comment at Ace of Spades this morning, and, surprisingly, didn’t get the flaming I expected. I guess most people just ignored it.)

    I’ve come to the conclusion that Paul is the least objectionable candidate. That says more about the others than it does about him.

    I’m despairing that any of the likely Republican candidates can beat Obama. He still has the MBM, vote fraud, and white guilt on his side.

    Paul’s negatives have been rehashed over and over again, so I’d like to consider a few positives:

    1. He would appoint judges who have actually read the Constitution. I would even go so far as to say that his appointments would probably be better than anyone else’s.

    2. He would win more votes among independents and disaffected Democrats than any of the other candidates. Aren’t we always being told that it is the independents who decide elections?

    3. I can’t see young people voting for Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum. No matter how bad the economy is, they will default to Obama when push comes to shove, or they’ll stay home. Paul would get a lot of the youth vote, and would absolutely kick the legs from under their support for Obama.

36. SteveH:
    I believe that the whole purpose of Obama’s economic policy was to force more people to become dependent on the government. That has succeeded spectacularly. The job market is in the crapper, unemployment has been extended to 99 weeks, and I think about one in seven Americans are on food stamps.

    Any serious fiscal conservative is going to have to tell those people that their benefits will be cut. Good luck with that. Who do you think they’re going to vote for?

37. I don’t really care for either but I think Romney is a better candidate / has a better chance to win…. Newt says crazy sounding stuff too much… impeach judges? This guy is supposed to know history… geesh…

38. @thomass – Newt has been giving good examples of judges who are completely out of control in their war on our Judeo-Christian heritage and the Constitution. We need a way to reign these ratbags in.

    How can one judge decide that the possible extinction of a fish, based on dubious science, is more worthy than the extinction of millions of dollars of human capital invested in farms and orchards in San Joaquin Valley? That one rogue judge can ignore the will of the legislature, the plight of the people, and the Constitution, to satisfy the agenda of a narrowly focused group of environmental extremists.

    That’s not what the founders intended

39. Any serious fiscal conservative is going to have to tell those people that their benefits will be cut. Good luck with that. Who do you think they’re going to vote for?

    I know a bunch of people who aren’t getting as much work as they’d like, who aren’t working as much as they’d like, and who, sadly, aren’t working at all though they’d like to.

    They don’t want more unemployment benefits; they know that ain’t gonna get them through this. They live in the real world, where a job matters.

    And they want a frelling job!

    And they know about the 20,000 jobs the president veto’ed by telling the Canadians to kiss off.

    And they know the president has stopped all drilling in the Gulf.

    People know.

    And they are seething.

    So in answer to your question: any and every candidate who makes the case that the economy will improve, and that those people will be able to get a job, that’s who.

    …except the currently sitting president. He can’t make that case.

    That dog don’t …and won’t …hunt.

    …because no one believes him anymore.

40. Here is the polling that matters.

    Jim Geraghty, NRO, Campaign Spot

    Ninety-seven percent are worried about the economy, 79 percent describe themselves as “very worried.”

    Again: Obama loses.

41. davisbr,

    To support your oservations above: In the SC Exit Polling, those who were “most worried” about the economy voted 40% for Newt (v. 28% for Mitt) and those who were “somewhat worried” voted 31% for Newt (v. 28% for Mitt).

    Remember that this was an open primary, Independents and Dems could vote, so this makes the exit polling even more interesting.

    I do believe that you are correct. The Obama dog don’t and won’t hunt and the American people now know that.

42. Neonecon,

    You have asked why those of us currently supporting Gingrich believe he is electable. In addition to the discussion we’ve all been having, I also offer Byron York’s article. I’m especially in agreement with his observation of the speed (and flexibility) of Newt’s campaign v. the mass of Mitt’s campaign. I think York’s article is insightful.

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/why-gingrich-won-why-romney-lost/328266

43. If Romney really was a threat, you would think the media would have started attacking him by now. Is he that squeaky clean, or is it that the Obama machine wants the field to dwindle down to him before they touch him?

    You have Palin who was preemptorily destroyed as a candidate before she could run. Then there was Perry, even before he was tripped up in the debates, getting smeared as a racist by a rock on family property. Most famously we had Cain, quickly done in by an avalanche of unsubstantiated stories. Now Gingrich is getting bombarded with not only the ex-wife attacks but by continual accusations of the new liberal speaking term”dog whistle racism”, aka racism that only they can define or identify.

    But other than Gingrich’s own attacks on Romney, he has been relatively spared. You well know that the Obama campaign has a long history of destroying any viable candidates before the election happens, so wouldn’t their apparent choice of Romney as the opponent speak to his inherent electability?

    I don’t think the fat, old, white Gingrich has a chance in hell to beat Obama, but it would certainly be fun to watch Obama -um and -er his way through a debate with him (while the media would predictably claim Obama a decisive winner the next day). However, Romney, based on the assessment of Obama’s people (who I trust in these matters) has zero chance as well.

    Basically, we’re screwed for lack of a candidate much better than the likes of Bob Dole or John McCain. At least with Gingrich as nominee, the ride to 4 more years of Obama will be a bit more entertaining.

    Hopefully, the country isn’t too far gone in 2016 for one of the up and coming Republicans to take out Michelle Obama in the general election.

44. Stanislaus,

    If Newt wins the nomination, I think we will all be very surprised at an Obama Gingrich debate. Many conservatives will sit down with their popcorn and just wait for the bloodletting to begin. Several months ago I said exactly the same thing.

    I suggest that this will not happen.

    Newt is not stupid, and as Byron York points out (see above) Newt’s campaigning has been marked by speed and flexibility. I think Newt, like Gary Kasparov, is thinking numerous moves ahead of his opponent (Obama). I think these debates are going to serve to set Obama up and if an Obama/Gingrich debate does materialize, I think Newt’s apporach will be totally unexpected and thus Obama will be left indefensible. I think that he will still “take Obama apart,” but not in the manner most of us expect.

    Newt is giving Republicans red meat; I expect him to pivot to some degree to win a national audience, especially one that already expects him to come off as cranky and vindictive. This is no way to be seen as the winner of a debate and would play right into the Rick Lazio/Hillary Clinton debacle in New York. I think that Newt is smart enough to not walk into that trap.

45. Curtis(3:53pm-1/21)…Bush lost..? Huh..?
    _____________________________________
    I’m for Mitt for several reasons that are far stronger than Newt. At this time next year America will have been “un-led” 4-years by a ridiculous infantile hard left, narcissist with No Love of the Country of the Founding Documents. He has been perpetually attending Elsewhere Diversions–whether foreign or domestic/ whether vacations, stump blather, faux foreign meetings or golf–a drama boy who despises tough, plodding, follow through WORK. He has been a full blown catastrophe. An ideologue of no exceptional smarts whatsoever. Not even the verbally nimble word smith the Dem’s thought they were getting. Useless without teleprompter. Clueless in bringing Sides Together. And, as I pointed out tirelessly in 2008, NO LEADERSHIP on his strange resume at all. I’ll give him a grudging plus for cool temperament(apparently)and love of his wife and daughters. Might be qualified for an Assistant Prof job at a state college. Maybe. BLACK has got him EVERYTHING. 95+% of Black Voters are loyal to him and–more amazing after 3 years–most still seem to think His Infantile Majesty is “something” to behold. It leaves me gasping. Skin Color Pride+45 years of the Nanny State+a generation of moochers with entitlement towards working folks $$+?????+??????+?????…The black folks I see and interact with in a tough little ‘hood in Clermont-Minneola here in Central Florida most Fridays for 3-years now are–many, not all–masters at working the system, birthing multiple-endless, yet no Dad present, babies and no interest in JOBS. They don’t mention The Boy King anymore, but he’ll have their votes. Period.
    ________________________________________
    The Repubs must have large Independent voting and Romney can get that. A majority ain’t buying ObamBam. But, trust me, they won’t buy Newt by a country mile. Egomaniacal, Clinically Manic, Compulsive, MUST-MUST be the smartest guy in any room, Impulsive for NEW thingies, DRAMA-DRAMA-DRAMA and no ability for plodding, resolute follow through.

    It’s Mitt or we lose. He can be pressured more to the Right. His Veep needs to be muscular, bright, tough, and PLEASE GOD no lover of PC.

46. Neoconscum,

    Recent posts by Wolla Dalbo on this and other threads wouls provide a counter to some of your interpretation of Newt, and Wolla Dalbo apepars to speak from some more direct experience than either you or I.

    AS for “Mitt or we lose,” I couldn’t disagree with you more. Mitt has certain qualities to offer, but so too, does Newt. So far I just can’t see Obama winning the upcoming under current circumstances, and I don’t expect things to improve ove rthe next 10 mos.

    Whichever the Repub nominee, I will support him enthusiastically.

47. neo, I respectfully – but totally – disagree, for pretty much the same reasons (just substitute the names)

    …are we at the level where it’s left to “whom wins, wins”?

    …this happens often as the primary wears on. Movement ceases. At that point, we all become Reb Tevye, and say “On the other hand, how can I turn my back on my faith, my people? If I try and bend that far, I’ll break. On the other hand… No. There is no other hand.

    …maybe not quite that bad, but still ….

    ——
    …”neoconscum“? – What the hell? That’s uncalled for. Get over yourself T. Descending to name calling is simply fail; you do yourself no good, and the rest of us no favours.

48. Ah crap. Sorry T.

    …I’ve not paid enough attention to know that someone actually chose “neoconscum”.

    My bad. Disregard.

49. rickl: Your three positives for Paul are spot-on. He would deserve my vote on the Justices alone. That issue was the only one that led me to vote for GWB in 2004.

    It helps me, too, that I like most of the rest of his platform. And I am having trouble finding anyone to explain the current Democrat-neocon foreign policy strategy. They dance between vague and unsubstantiated enemies without illustrating the path to an as-yet-undefined victory. Bringing the troops back to the homeland until we figure who and where we need to attack doesn’t seem “crazy” to me.

50. davisbr,

    No problem man. I had to look twice myself the first time I saw it.

51. This is an absolutely brilliant post. Republicans should listen to you. You say it better than, smarter than, and less dismissive than David Frum and Jennifer Rubin.

52. T,

    You might be right on the debate thing. Newt has been advertising the Lincoln-Douglas aspect for so long now, even though he knows it will never happen, that he must have a reason.

    First, the issue puts Obama on the defensive from day 1. He will never not look weak and afraid and Gingrich will never not find ways of reminding him of this.

    He has also threatened, and it is absolutely being use as a threat, to follow Obama wherever he goes. I can actually see that. The visual might work in a long campaign. Newt gets the last word and the take down critique too. He might force Obama into several panic errors.

    Newt will absolutely show Obama to be the average intellect he is. He will run policy circles around him, and he also has a track record of consensus – the thing Obama has been telling us for months he can’t do.Newt can use that. He can use everything.

    I’m still marginally Romney, but Hey Mitt! Time to step up your game bro. As in now or never.

53. davisbr and T: Fascinating exchange, Duuudes. (-:
    _________________________________________
    foxmarks: “…current Democrat-neocon foreign policy strategy.” Never have heard of said FP Strategery. Dems-Obama are for Paulite retreat from victory and demonstrate weakness, flabbiness and idiocy for all the world–Enemies(current & potential)and Friends who once trusted our strength and word–to see and contemplate.

    And, EeeeeekK, Neocons? Strength, fortitude, follow through, promise keeping and a solid belief in America as the Unipolar Superpower FOR GOOD.

54. While I am leaning towards Romney myself, ultimately the only candidate who would clearly be an even worse president than Obama would be Ron Paul, and even he would be far better on economic issues.

    I don’t think there is any doubt that a critical mass of Americans have seen quite enough of Obama. There is a feeling of hopelessness and fear for this country that probably hasn’t been this bad since Carter, and may actually be worse, for not even Carter had spent his entire previous life being mentored and influenced by people who literally hate this country. Obama’s malignant leftism, as expressed through monumentally boneheaded policies like the rejection of the Keystone Pipeline, has left millions of Americans gasping for the fresh air of something different, something that will shake things up and at least produce a chance for positive economic change, not to mention more intelligent foreign policies than the ones we’ve been ‘treated’ to. It would also be an immense psychic relief for millions to know that the next president, whatever his flaws, is at least a person who loves this country and believes in its greatness. I’ve never believed that of Obama, because the people he has associated with his whole life are clearly not of that kind. That is an overwhelmingly greater moral failing than anything Gingrich or Romney are guilty of.

    No matter how much you may dislike Romney or dislike Gingrich, you have to stay focused on the way out of our national mess, and there is no question that the FIRST thing that must happen is for Obama to be defeated. If that does not happen in 2012, we as a nation are f*cked. Every other consideraton – Gingrich’s flaws, Romney’s flaws, blah, blah, blah – is secondary.

55. abdul7591,

    Many of the reason you cite are precisely why I believe (at this point) that Obama can’t win in November.

    Nwt is starting to make exactly that point today; that Obama takes his conception fo America from Alinsky and leftists and nto from the founding fathers. He notes that such a positon goes counter to what 80% of Americans think this country is all about. That is the hill Obama must climb and he simply does not have the track record to allow him to do that.

56. This seems clear-eyed and likely to be true:

    “When you imagine Gingrich debating Obama, you see him sticking it to the MSM and arguing rings around the president. But most of America won’t see it that way. They’ll see a nasty man next to a pleasant one. They’ll see an unattractive man next to an attractive one. They’ll see an old guy next to a young one, a fat guy next to a thin one.”

57. I’m in your camp…

    There is WAY TOO MUCH DIRT in the Grinch’s back round.

    Like how he’s made it to $ 100,000,000 — apparently all on ‘selling access’ / graft.

58. Blert? – Fail.

    Newt and his wife have a net worth of $6.7 million. They companies they own had revenues of $100M: revenues aren’t net dude. Buy a clue.

    And double fail.

    …plus based upon that condition as the core of your argument, you would unnecessarily cede the $190M – $250 (of actual net work) of the Romney’s as an even greater [populist] political liability.**

    OneTimePoster? Not quite as egrigiously fail as blert, but almost –

    You could as easily make the observation that people who would be likely to make such a shallow judgment call on such shallow attributes as you assert, are

    1) unlikely to be paying much attention in the first place (preferring to stick with True Romance & People magazines, or preferring American Idol to watching a presidential debate), and

    2) being people highly unlikely to vote regardless.

    **no link, but their financial info is included in their respective Wikipedia entries.

59. davisbr…Uh, question, Duuude: “American Idol”, People and True Romance Mags are–what–more shallow than a presidential debate? WHEW.

    I don’t read People(maybe skim it at my barber’s shop)and wouldn’t know American Idol if I tripped over it. That said, you can have your deeply deep prezzie debate TV dramas. Right up there with Peeps Magazine. Who can be the most verbally nimble tonight? Who can be the icon of high school debate clubs tonight? Who can be glib, clever, attack the cheap ****s of the media(Boy, that’s HARD to do!!)tonight, Duuude?

    Pass. Go, Romney.

60. LOL (because I can appreciate a pert response, neoconscum).

    To your question: Yes. Which tags me as pretentious, and a political junkie.

    Guilty as charged.

    …still chuckling.

    My first impulse was just to go with “whoosh” btw, but as I laughed, I didn’t.

61. Oh. And as far as using “dude”.

    In my wastrel youth many decades ago, I was a California wannabe-surfer-“dude”. The word was never used as a pejorative, I still don’t.

62. …most of America won’t see it that way. They’ll see a nasty man next to a pleasant one. They’ll see an unattractive man next to an attractive one. They’ll see an old guy next to a young one, a fat guy next to a thin one.

    I hate that this is true, but I know it is. My politically ignorant sister in law once stated that she was going to vote for Bill Clinton simply because, “He’s a lot sexier than Bush. And I really like his eyes.” It was one of those unbelievable comments that brands itself in the mind for its pure idiotic honesty.

63. davisbr…Enjoyed your stuff. No pejorative intended. Just “non-seriosity”. Baa-Daa-Bing.

    Funny, small world: I’m a lifelong So.Californian living now in Winter Park, Florida, and travel back to the Ship Wrecked Peoples Republic for steaming piles if (TV)film ‘art’ on random occassions. “Decades”, eh..? Whew, me too. Body surfing was my thing in the early to mid 60s, then politics of the Lefty-Yootful kind. Then the ‘Biz, but ALWAYS politically engaged. Neocon since ’81-’82 when ‘mugged massively’ by reality.

64. Neo? –

    A quick update on the favorability/unfavorability stat’s …and a rationale which I have always understood to be (rightly or wrongly on my part …hmm, maybe “assumed to be” would be more accurate) one of the foundational arguments of Mitt’s supporters in regards to his “electability advantage” over Newt’.

    Apparently, the figures have changed. As of the last poll on the subject, Mitt’s unfavorability rating amongst independents …is now all of 1% above Newt’s.

    Falling, with a bullet. Ouch.

    Doesn’t that blow a rather major hole in arguments baded upon Mitt’s electability advantage in the general, now, during the primary?

    (I’ve dismissed that argument in various threads, as my faith in someone or something preemptively presupposing an election outcome assuredly even a few months prior to said election, is very, very weak; almost non-existent, even. “No one has a crystal ball. No one.”)

65. davisbr: Link, please?

66. My apologies neo …I missed your request for a cite yesterday afternoon (dealing with an errant server for a client). It was all over the webs yesterday: do you still need it?

    …dunno where I got the original (“diverse corners” and all that), but here’s the likely source of the original: WaPost – “Public Sours on Romney”

    …old news at this point.

    But the answer to my question as to whether I’m incorrect in thinking that “electability” was foundational for Romney supporters, and what this portent means for that basis, I’m still quite curious about.

67. davisbr:

    I have no idea whether “electability” is “foundational” for Romney supporters in general. But this is what I wrote on the subject about two weeks ago (in response to a comment by gcotharn):

    But I’ve never understood this meme you and others state, which is that people on this blog (or many Romney supporters elsewhere) are saying he’s so very “electable.” For example, I don’t think I’ve ever used the word until just now, to respond to you. What I have done is pointed to polls that indicate he does considerably better than any of the other Republican candidates against Obama, and that in some he leads Obama, and that he does better than any of the other Republican candidates with Independents (again, according to polls, not according to my opinion).

    So I think what Romney-supporters are saying is twofold: (1) he would be a better president than Obama (irrelevant to this discussion, but it is part of the message of Romney-supporters); and (2) He would do better against Obama than the other Republican candidates, and therefore is more “electable” compared to them.

    So, according to the article you linked (which I just skimmed, so I may have missed something), Romney’s unfavorable numbers are up but they are still better than Gingrich’s. Plus (and I don’t have a link for this, although I read it somewhere yesterday) Gingrich’s unfavorables have been high for almost 20 years, unceasingly. This rise in unfavorables of Romney is new. Time will tell whether it’s only temporary or lasts through the primary months.

    But what’s also important is my reason #1, since I don’t just support Romney because of this “electability” factor (personally I think either man would have a hard time beating Obama, although I think Obama is ripe for the picking, because I think they both have profound weaknesses as candidates, but I think that so far Romney has a somewhat better chance than Newt). I’ve read a lot about Romney’s actual record (rather than the hype), and I believe the evidence is that he is quite conservative and will be an effective, competent president, of even temperament and not emotionally volatile or unbalanced. That’s what I’m looking for.

68. TY.

    …I agree they both have profound weaknesses.

    I’m rather more optimistic about the final fall results though (with either Romney or Gingrich …and as far as that goes, with almost any GOP candidate), for the reason I’ve often enumerated (the economy).

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>